See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On July 2nd, 2009 at 11:33 am, purplepeep said:

   Odd how Democrats keep having problems with “vetting”…

2. #2
   On July 2nd, 2009 at 11:35 am, Misscheryl said:

   left hand…meet right hand.

3. #3
   On July 2nd, 2009 at 11:43 am, mchristian said:

   As Ace of Spades commenter ICBM called them, presstitutes.

4. #4
   On July 2nd, 2009 at 11:43 am, walterc said:

   As is usually the case with such discussions, the group didn’t break any serious ground in determining how to save a troubled journalism industry. In fact, many had to admit that they had no idea what to do.

   How ’bout doing a little investigative reporting and maybe actually report on the findings? In other words, quit pandering to the Whitehouse and do your job.

   There, solved the problem.

5. #5
   On July 2nd, 2009 at 11:51 am, Ragspierre said:

   presstitutes

   LOVE that…!!!!

   At least the NYT and WaPo are openly presstituing themselves for pay…

   most of the MSM are just WHO-ers (as they say on The Sopranos), giving away for free!

6. #6
   On July 2nd, 2009 at 11:54 am, vinny said:

   Check out the movie “Idiocracy”:

   -They could introduce topless reporters and news anchors.
   -They could make the paper softer and properly perforated, to be more competitive.
   …

7. #7
   On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm, Michelle Malkin said:

   presstitutes

   Already cited here.

8. #8
   On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm, tre said:

   They could introduce topless reporters and news anchors.

   How much would I need to pay them for Helen Thomas to not go topless?

9. #9
   On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:06 pm, Auggie Dog said:

   For $10,000.00 they will give you the instructions for how to properly wrap a fish.

10. #10
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:06 pm, Ragspierre said:

    How much would I need to pay them for Helen Thomas to not go topless?

    That would be covered under “Crimes Against Humanity”…

    (shivers)

11. #11
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:07 pm, Weary Citizen said:

    In fact, many had to admit that they had no idea what to do.

    Oh gee, I don’t know, how about STOP LIBERAL BIAS REPORTING? Quit fawning all over derelicts and illegal aliens. Stop demeaning conservatives. Stop PC reporting, and attacking whites at every turn while making heroes of every minority. It’s not complicated. I refuse to buy the local liberal rag here (Austin American Statesman) becuase of the reasons above. If there was a conservative, at least balanced reporting, paper locally, I would subscribe. Until then, I will rely solely on talk raido and the web for my news.

12. #12
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Can you blame Ms. Weymouth for not knowing or not believing the WaPo was planning dinners in her home?

    Perhaps Ms. Weymouth doesn’t read the WaPo, or at least, like everyone else in the world, she doesn’t believe anything she sees printed there.

    I’m just saying…

13. #13
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 pm, JohnnyD said:

    On July 2nd, 2009 at 11:54 am, vinny said:
    Check out the movie “Idiocracy”:

    -They could introduce topless reporters and news anchors.
    -They could make the paper softer and properly perforated, to be more competitive absorbent.

    I think that fits better. I’m sure birds would think so.

14. #14
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    Michelle Malkin said:

    Already cited here.

    Twitter quip of the morning from Lindsay Janeway: “[T]he Washington Compost = presstitutes – Now we know the real reason their papers are sold on the corner.”

    Yup. That’s a great word. Says it all. doesn’t it?

15. #15
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm, Ragspierre said:

    I love the implications of broadcast presstitues…

16. #16
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm, right_on said:

    For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, non-confrontational access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.

    Question: When lawyers start working in any administration they become political whores. When they leave and go to work in the private sector, as lobbyists, they become, what?

    Answer: Prostituting Attorneys

17. #17
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    That is like soooo redundant!

    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm, right_on said:

    Prostituting Attorneys

18. #18
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm, IndyRich said:

    As is usually the case with such discussions, the group didn’t break any serious ground in determining how to save a troubled journalism automaker industry. In fact, many had to admit that they had no idea what to do.

19. #19
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm, IndyRich said:

    As is usually the case with such discussions, the group didn’t break any serious ground in determining how to save a troubled journalism financial industry. In fact, many had to admit that they had no idea what to do.

20. #20
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm, IndyRich said:

    As is usually the case with such discussions, the group didn’t break any serious ground in determining how to save a troubled journalism healthcare industry. In fact, many had to admit that they had no idea what to do.

21. #21
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm, IndyRich said:

    As is usually the case with such discussions, the group didn’t break any serious ground in determining how to save a troubled journalism economy. In fact, many had to admit that they had no idea what to do.

22. #22
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Sister Toldja calls them WaHO.

    Apt.

23. #23
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm, IndyRich said:

    Need I continue?!?

24. #24
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm, dan708 said:

    Imagine how WaPo would react if their reporters had found out that a conservative news organization had done that! Big headlines: CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCE PEDDLING!, NEWS FOR SALE TO HIGHEST BIDDER!

25. #25
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:38 pm, IndyRich said:

    Oops…sorry folks! I should’ve replaced “the group” with “democrat party leaders”, too….

26. #26
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm, d1carter said:

    Desperation is an ugly thing…

27. #27
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm, FruNobulux said:

    What’s the big deal? I applaud their integrity for putting explicit prices on what we know has been going on for 20 or 30 years.

28. #28
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    The Washington Post says its newsroom didn’t know about the pimp deal its business/marketing side was making.

    The check is in the mail

    Your luggage will be right up

    This time I really mean it

    I never had sex with that women, Miss Lewinsky

    The Washington Post is a real newspaper

29. #29
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm, vinny said:

    Q: How many MSM reporters does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A: Why would the blind need a lightbulb?

30. #30
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm, vinny said:

    Speaking of light bulbs and insanity-these Gore approved light bulbs release lots of absorbable Mercury when broken. It may explain why the MSM now acts like a bunch of mad hatters.

31. #31
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm, WarTip said:

    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    You seemed to have forgotten one I hear a lot.

    Trust Me!

32. #32
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm, d1carter said:

    “maintaining journalistic integrity” …yeah! You gotta have some before you can maintain it.

33. #33
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm, MtsEdge said:

    On the bright side, maybe they won’t need to ask for a bailout!!

34. #34
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:05 pm, MtsEdge said:

    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm, dan708 said:
    Imagine how WaPo would react if their reporters had found out that a conservative news organization had done that! Big headlines: CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCE PEDDLING!, NEWS FOR SALE TO HIGHEST BIDDER!

    Maybe that would motivate them to do some “objective reporting” then.

35. #35
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm, Regulus said:

    Why is it that when I read about this, Aretha Franklin’s song “Who’s Zoomin’ Who?” pops into my head and I can’t get it out?

    Both the Voluntary State Media and Hope-a-Dope think that they can use the other to advance their own agendas, and they’re both right as long as each gets something out of it.

    The problem in this john-prostitute relationship, however, is that the prostitute has fallen in love with the john. This leads to foolish acts of devotion that in the end will give rise to much bitterness when they’re not reciprocated.

    The media are the only thing standing between Hope-a-Dope and the mass opprobrium he so richly deserves. Hope-a-Dope’s media whores are glacially slowly, yet inexorably moving toward the conclusion that he doesn’t love them back, he’s just using them (e.g., witness the recent Helen Thomas testy exchange with Robert Gibbs).

    Once a smitten hooker feels scorned enough, the danger is that she’ll no longer feel bound by the “money-for-services-agreement” to keep quiet about all the embarrassing things she knows.

    And I’ll bet that the media know quite a lot of Inconvenient Truths about Hope-a-Dope that they’re not letting on, just like Newsweek spiked the Monica Lewinsky story.

    “Hell hath no fury,” so they say…

36. #36
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:10 pm, Boomer said:

    “This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren’t vetted. They didn’t represent at all what we were attempting to do. We’re not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom.”

    Opps! Somebody leaked this to the peons that can’t afford this type of access. Nothing to see here move along.

37. #37
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    “It suggests that access to Washington Post journalists was available for purchase,” Brauchli said.

    Suggests???? Sir, that your journalists are available for purchase is a fact. Maybe not for cash payments, but payments none the less are made.

38. #38
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm, b-cat said:

    We’re not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom.”

    You don’t have a newsroom. You have an editorial room.

    As is usually the case with such discussions, the group didn’t break any serious ground in determining how to save a troubled journalism industry. In fact, many had to admit that they had no idea what to do.

    How about doing actual reporting; who, what, when, where, why? I don’t need to buy your paper, I know what you’re going to say without reading it.

39. #39
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm, Wade said:

    Who is in charge there, Janet Nap.

40. #40
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm, Wade said:

    Nothing more that testing the water. Throw it out there, any problems, it was not vetted. lame lame lame

41. #41
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm, Atlanta Media Guy said:

    A little late for an apology.. This is what happens when greed takes over an organization. The Washington Times and Examiner should have a field day with this.

    Wasn’t it a few years ago that reporters from WaPo and NY Times were hammering the Bush Administration for creating news pieces and distributing them to stations to explain policy? Geez, what’s the difference here? WaPo wanted cash for the ability to meet with the power brokers. Excuse me.. President Obama and every Congress person works for US.. That would be US! Why should we have to pay for access to our elected officials> Once again.. OUR elected officials… Hey O, that House you live in is that people’s House! Not your’s.. You are only occupying it currently since you had more votes than McCain.

    What has our country become? These idiots in DC work for US!

42. #42
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm, rightwingmom said:

    Journalistic Integrity
    SOLD to the highest bidder!

43. #43
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm, Teddy Kennedy said:

    Errah, these meetings wouldn’t be worth a dime for a cup of coffee.

44. #44
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm, steveegg said:

    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm, b-cat said:

    We’re not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom.”

    You don’t have a newsroom. You have an editorial room.

    Actually, they have a DNC campaign office.

45. #45
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    Just a thought. Rather than “Salons”….Would a better name for these little gatherings have been….

    Bath Houses?

    or

    Massage Parlours?

46. #46
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm, JohnnyD said:

    They didn’t represent at all what we were attempting to do.

    Which was what exactly?

    We’re not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom.”

    Ouch, stop, stop. Sides. Splitting.

47. #47
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 pm, JohnnyD said:

    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm, Atlanta Media Guy said:

    I was thinking the same thing. That was a huge hammer the libs used. Hell, they probably still believe it too. But this, nothing wrong one little bit. Just a friendly get together between like-thinking folks.

48. #48
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 pm, sherlock said:

    “…it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the good name of The Washington Post.”

    Hell, Bernie Madeoff was offering a better investment than that!

49. #49
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm, RobM1981 said:

    A woman selling favors from her house…

    How is this form of “journalism” different form the world’s oldest profession?

50. #50
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm, hrobusto said:

    SNORTALICIOUS!

51. #51
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm, Misscheryl said:

    1:52 pm, RobM1981 said:
    A woman selling favors from her house…

    How is this form of “journalism” different form the world’s oldest profession from congress ?

    Now we know Pelosi does this sort of stuff all the time, less not even mention Bwanie Fwank.

52. #52
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm, DBNinKY said:

    “Absolutely, I’m disappointed,” Weymouth, the chief executive of Washington Post Media, said in an interview. “This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren’t vetted. They didn’t represent at all what we were attempting to do. We’re not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom.”

    One would think that someone like Weymouth, with her patrician/”looking down her nose” attitude and assumed ivy-league education could put out a better, more realistic excuse than that!

    The fliers were escaped unvetted? What’s next – the dog ate my homework?

53. #53
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm, sbw999 said:

    Absolutely, I’m pretending that I’m disappointed,” Weymouth, the chief executive of Washington Post Media, said in an interview. “This should never have gotten out in the open happened. The fliers got out and weren’t vetted. They didn’t represented everything at all what we were attempting to do. We’re not going to do any dinners that would impugn the errrr….*winks at reporter* integrity of the newsroom.”

    “It suggests accurately that access to Washington Post journalists was available for purchase,” Brauchli said. The proposal “promises we would suspend our usual skeptical softball questioning of Democrats because it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the now worthless good name of The Washington Post.

    Much better.

54. #54
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm, CO2 Producer said:

    Since they got busted attempting to entice lobbyists, they are dropping the idea entirely, which means they knew it was a stupid idea. It also means they knew what they were doing all along. Their beef is that the info got out too soon. The fliers got out. WaPo wishes they hadn’t, because they now have egg slathered all over their faces. They didn’t want anyone to know about it until they got the wording right. Aw, shucks, that’s too bad. Back to the drawing board.

    It doesn’t matter how much they wanted to charge lobbyists, they were still acting as middlemen, offering lobbyists meetings with the administration. Sounds unethical to me no matter who resides in the Oval Office. Are these “policy dinners” commonplace?

55. #55
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    The media is an unelected force who exist to perpetuate themselves and their view of the world, at any cost. The major news organizations no longer represent what can be called a free press.

56. #56
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:43 pm, Flyoverman said:

    This appears to be “Plan B” that you resort to when your advertising revenue has plunged and you are in the tank.

57. #57
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:47 pm, Gorebot said:

    And thus, the White-Washington/House-Post conjugal relationship is consummated.

    The ideological fluids have now been commingled, at only $250K a “pop”.

    Ah, true love.

    They need to open a new office at 1600 Prostitution Avenue.

58. #58
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm, Micheleeroo said:

    Rush doesn’t call these people “the state-run media” for nothing.

59. #59
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm, Micheleeroo said:

    Influence peddling! Hey, it works in Chicago…

60. #60
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm, scituate_tgr said:

    Our local radio personnality uses the term:

    J-whore-nalists

    Seems fitting here, thought I would share.

61. #61
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:56 pm, EMT Bill said:

    The publisher lies to us. We know she’s lying and she knows that we know that she is lying, and there isn’t a thing we can do about it.

62. #62
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:56 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    I still want to know who they pimping in the Obama administration and how much money, or what compensation these Obama people and members of congress were getting for their participation?

63. #63
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    We are supposed to believe that WaPo chief and publisher Katharine Weymouth did not know that her business division was planning to use her home

    For $1500 Barney Frank will tell you he doesn’t know what’s going on in her basement.

64. #64
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 3:08 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    One suggestion for the WaPo – there are stories on your web site about the Redskins dating back to last December. The hostess on this site writes four or five “columns” a day. You need more productivity from your columnists, and you need to understand how the Web is used by potential readers. Never mind – you won’t understand.

65. #65
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm, rightwingmom said:

    What’s amazing to me is the naivety of the MSM that socialism is their friend.

    In every account of socialism, communism, Marxism, or fascism, the media was put under tight control. If you dared to have a differing opinion from the gov’t. you were silenced!

    MSM wants their freedom and socialism too. They go together like oil and water!

66. #66
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm, WarTip said:

    On July 2nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm, rightwingmom said:

    What’s amazing to me is the naivety of the MSM that socialism is their friend.

    In every account of socialism, communism, Marxism, or fascism, the media was put under tight control. If you dared to have a differing opinion from the gov’t. you were silenced!

    Historically, the people who have helped put the socialists in power have been the first ones sent to the gulags, reeducation camps and in many cases, the very first ones lined up against “the wall”.

    State Run media Propaganda

    How are those Union jobs working out in China? Cuba? Russia?

    How about those brownshirts huh? Guess the Blackshirts (Waffen SS) really thanked them huh?

    It really is amazing when you think about all of it LOGICALLY.

67. #67
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm, DBNinKY said:

    Ya know, it’s ironic that the same Weymouth who in the past has chided and belittled Sarah Palin in the editorial pages of WaPo for supposedly being less than “on her game,” should have allowed this to go (supposedly) unnoticed at her own paper.

    Maybe Weymouth should heed the advice she freely dispenses to Governor Palin and brush-up on her own administrative skills.

68. #68
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm, Ragspierre said:

    The publisher lies to us. We know she’s lying and she knows that we know that she is lying, and there isn’t a thing we can do about it.

    OK…teaching moment.

    There are TWO classes of things you can do about it: negative and positive.

    Negative: NEVER consume a WaHO product of any kind again, and let them know. Write the WaHO sponsors, and let them know how you feel, and that you are willing to back your feelings with your dollars.

    Positive: SUPPORT your local (and national) alternative media. CONTRIBUTE money to Michelle’s websiteSSS, and others like these.

    Other people, chime in with your own ideas.

    This is how we TAKE our nation…and its institutions…BACK.

69. #69
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm, J S Ragman said:

    The fliers got out and weren’t vetted.

    What, they forgot to add the date with Bill Clinton, too?

70. #70
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm, J S Ragman said:

    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm, Michelle Malkin said:
    presstitutes
    Already cited here.

    So would it be disrepectful to refer to those in the administration as “preztitutes”?

71. #71
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm, Auggie Dog said:

    the good name of The Washington Post.

    Excuse me while I quote one of the only real journalists worth reading these days.

    Ouch, stop, stop. Sides. Splitting.”

72. #72
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm, Otis said:

    Sounds like the fliers were the big mistake….not the actual plan to sell off-the-record access. The “overzealous marketing” employees weren’t supposed to openly market it. doh!

73. #73
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 4:12 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm, WarTip said:

    On July 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    You seemed to have forgotten one I hear a lot.

    Trust Me!

    Trust me, I was going to and this time I mean it.

74. #74
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 4:21 pm, rowsdower said:

    This serves to reinforce the reality that the media and the left/Dem/Administration, particularly the Beltway establishment ,are simply all part of the same organism.Anne Coulter put it rather well when she stated that the Democrats are the media party.

75. #75
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm, happy2behere said:

    I never thought a paper could stoop lower than the New York Times. The Wapo got its “Thug Thizzle” on.

76. #76
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm, prendad said:

    INTEGRITY: A widely respected trait that was widely abandoned sometime early in the 21st century due primarily to the efforts of the 44th president of the United States as aided by the Democratic Party and it’s leader, George Soros.

77. #77
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm, Buy Danish said:

    Ha! TOTUS weighs in. An excerpt:

    But wait … there’s more: the opportunity to dine with Teleprompter and stare at the screens, since, as he is an inanimate object, he can not engage you in conversation like Washington Post publishers or unpaid lobbyists working at the White House might.

    All of this, plus a Teleprompter bobblehead and a souvenir White House cigarette lighter, could be had for three easy payments of $19.95. That’s $100,000 in stimulus dollars! Call now!

78. #78
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm, prendad said:

    Quiz. Name this newspaper:
    —————————————-
    Staff writers, photographers, editors and employees from other departments lined the hallway after word spread that the President-elect would be walking through the newsroom.

    At about 3:15 p.m., Obama entered through a back hallway and began shaking hands, as professional newsmen and women reached over to shake his hand and take pictures…

    …Obama left the newsroom around 3:30 p.m.

    “There goes our journalistic objectivity,” one reporter quipped, as people traded stories and pictures.
    —————————————-
    Only one guess allowed!

79. #79
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 pm, spaceycakes said:

    I’m sorry, but what’s the ‘draw’ here?

    Does anyone really wanna spend anytime with these bastards?

    I’d rather watch my cat in the litter box.

80. #80
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 6:14 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    The proposal “promises we would suspend our usual skeptical questioning because it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the good name of The Washington Post.

    They have a good name? And what would that be?

81. #81
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 6:36 pm, Cowboy said:

    and they wonder why no one believes a word they write.

82. #82
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 7:31 pm, chapoutier said:

    Yeesh. WaPo….

    I…really don’t know what to say…

    I like you. I really do. I actually subscribe. My wife and I love completing your Sunday crossword over breakfast. I love your Tuesday chats with Weingarten and Wednesdays with Sietsema.

    But geez. This stinks.

83. #83
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm, swede said:

    chap, better to have loved and lost…well, maybe not. Try the WSJ. Great cartoons!

84. #84
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 8:15 pm, Member-VRWC said:

    As is usually the case with such discussions, the group didn’t break any serious ground in determining how to save a troubled journalism industry. In fact, many had to admit that they had no idea what to do.

    I’m not a professional journalist. Hell, I don’t even play one on TV. But I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once so let me make a silly wild-a$$ guess. It’s not that difficult really.

    Try writing impartial news stories that focus on the facts, not your liberal agenda.

    Stop looking down your nose at your readers and those who might be as though your sh*t doesn’t stink because you know what, it and your present “news” content does. And there are millions of Americans that are a lot smarter than you are as evidenced by the fact that you have no idea what to do as your entire industry circles around the drain.

    But I know you’ll never do anything that would improve your product, which I why I invested in an 18 year old single malt that I will break open the day the NYT goes out of business.

85. #85
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm, Member-VRWC said:

    The proposal “promises we would suspend our usual skeptical questioning because it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the good name of The Washington Post

    Anyone from the WaPo is free to respond:

    I’m drawing a blank here. Please remind us about all the skeptical questioning you did throughout the Clinton years and since January 20, 2009.

86. #86
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 pm, Lucifer Jones said:

    On July 2nd, 2009 at 11:54 am, vinny said:
    Check out the movie “Idiocracy”:

    -They could introduce topless reporters and news anchors.
    -They could make the paper softer and properly perforated, to be more competitive.

    If anyone on the board cares to see where our culture is taking is, they should watch “Idiocracy”. They have the Carl’s JR ad campaign nailed to a t.

87. #87
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 pm, swede said:

    Liberal rags are hypocritical by their very existance. Anybody know how many trees they have to kill to print the NYT? Would be a great scoop.

88. #88
    On July 2nd, 2009 at 10:40 pm, HotWeaver said:

    The Washington Post now has to register as a lobbyist. Anyone who pays or is paid to lobby government officials is a lobbyist. The Washington Post was requesting payment for lobbying, so they are required to register.

    Incidentally, are lobbyists allowed to get press credentials?

89. #89
    On July 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 am, GraniteMan said:

    Was it WaPo that broke Watergate with Woodward/ Bernstein? Maybe they had Nixon in their pocket and he was Deep Throat?
    Interesting how they KNOW they can deliver all these key politicians at designated times. What do the politicians get out of this? A free dinner?

90. #90
    On July 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 am, mattm said:

    I don’t doubt for a minute that they didn’t know.

91. #91
    On July 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 am, puhiawa said:

    The ‘news room’ did not know of the flier that was put out for July 31, 2009 that required their attendance at a “reception”. When the news editor already admitted he read it, approved of it, and had arranged for attendance? huh?

92. #92
    On July 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 am, GladzKravtz said:

    I want access to news organizations.
    I’d pay just to give them a piece of my mind.

93. #93
    On July 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 am, TooMuchTime said:

    I’d rather watch my cat in the litter box.

    I can understand that, since it’s the exact same output as the liberal media. The advantage is that your cat covers up its poop while the WaPo calls it “a headline.”

    IndyRich, you hit the nail on the head. Four times! You get the gold star.

    Errah, these meetings wouldn’t be worth a dime for a cup of coffee.

    Teddy, isn’t that Irish Coffee you drink? hic!

94. #94
    On July 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 am, Ragspierre said:

    And now this…

    The WaHO protects its list of political “workers” in its stable.

    Other journalists have asked for the names of the politicians who were lined up for these “salons”. The WaHO is refusing to dish.

    Typical “madame” behavior. Get a warrant…

95. #95
    On July 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

    - Ronald Reagan